On 4/23/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
What caused this is writing an article about someone
who is not notable enough that the article would be read or watched. If it were not
autobiographical, at least the creator of the article might have it on their watchlist.
But as it is, who knew or cared? Our process depends on articles getting enough attention
that errors are noticed.
Fred
I agree with you, pointing out what I think you acknowledged but
wasn't made clear. She created this article on herself. Someone else
came along and vandalized it. Maybe it was someone else, anyway. I
don't think we can rule out the possibility that she did it herself to
create a news story.
It's sad that this stuff lasted so long. We desperately need a more
organized system for policing articles, especially ones about living
people. But I don't think Wikipedia or the foundation is to blame for
any of this.
We have enough eyes to catch this sort of thing much faster. Can we
please have some effort put into designing a system to utilize those
eyes efficiently? I'm not really talking about stable versions - a
simple system to list the "least examined edits" would be enough.
Defining which users count as valid "examiners" would be the hardest
part of the implementation, but *any* half-assed definition of who
qualifies would improve the system drastically.
C'mon, this could be implemented in a couple weeks by a single person
working a few hours a day. I'm forwarding this to foundation-l.
Anthony